Hello Everyone. As a new comer to this site, I welcome the chance to participate in the discussions here. There has been recent news on time.com that the current California Governor has decided to sign a bill which effectively makes his state a "sanctuary state." What this means is that people living illegally in that state will be afforded a degree of freedom allowing them to not fear being deported. While some people may think this is a positive and progressive move by California, the truth is that it does nothing except reward people who have taken it upon themselves to enter and live in the USA in violation of the law.

It is a most strange aspect of American society which feels the need to both condemn and reward people who break the law. An American shoplifter can find himself in a jail cell, but a foreign trespasser, which is what people who enter the country illegally are doing, can be rewarded with safety and freedom. The problem is that there are very few other countries willing to extend a helping hand to people who enter their land under cover of darkness or without letting the government know they are living in the country. Yet, California is doing this and it could effectively hurt the rest of the country. How? When people enter the USA illegally, be that place California or any other state, they are already showing themselves to be willing to break the law to get what they want. So, it is not too hard to imagine that such a person will break other laws in order to get the things they want or think they need. Further, they may likely leave California if they find that living is more comfortable in other states. Thus, Governor Jerry Brown of California is putting many Americans in jeopardy by what he and other politicians are doing in California.

Hopefully, the powers that be in California will come to their senses and make their state one in which everyone who comes into the country legally is welcomed with open arms, and those who sneak in will be sent back to the country from which they came.

Hopefully, the powers that be in California will come to their senses.

Welcome, Mic Aboine!

I hope that you will start many other threads.

*****

No (sob!), the powers that be in California will NEVER come to their senses.

They can't. They have to become more radical each year in order to get votes.

*****

I have lived in California for every second of my 80 years.

I am the expert on this state, and especially on Los Angeles (where I've lived since the 1940s).

I have seen the city and state go from a reactionary "conservative" state to a radical "liberal" state.

There is NO hope. We have passed the point of no return.

*****

Regarding illegal immigration, let's be frank: the war is over, and those who think that illegal immigration is just peachy have won.

"Liberals" are actually a minority in the country, but they control the media and academia. So they set the agenda for the nation, which is basically "conservative" and middle of the road.

*****

Be careful: if you continue to oppose illegal immigration, some members of this forum will apply the R-word to you. And, of course, the R-word is the most effective way to scare people into shutting up. In past years, they would shut one up by calling one a "Communist" or a "liberal." (Yes, not too many years ago, American politicians were terrified of being called "liberals," which was used as code for "Communists.")

They say that California leads the nation. Now that we are the first "Sanctuary State," we can probably expect other "liberal" states (such as New York, Minnesota, Washington state, etc.) to follow suit.

You've raised a difficult but interesting subject. I agree with you that people committing crimes should not be rewarded for their actions. At the same time, I believe the issue of illegal immigration is complex enough it cannot be solved without looking at the people and their context. Please note that I am not trying to justify the actions of people who illegally cross the border.

From what I can see, part of the motivation for sanctuary cities is to maintain the human and humane aspect of this issue. I believe most people do not illegally cross borders with further illegal intent. They cross with the intent of finding opportunities they were otherwise not given. They wouldn't go through with the trouble of the crime (and its possible ramifications) if they did not have pressing motivations for it, like trouble in their home country and a bogged down immigration system. This does not justify their actions, this does not mean they should be left alone, but it does mean that they are more than that one action they took.

I feel like sanctuary cities offer a haven of peace in an administration that (especially these days) oozes hostility towards people not like them. I believe it is a reaction to a mechanical, disinterested strategy that looks at illegal immigrants as a problem to be solved, rather than an issue involving people with their own motivations. I don't think sanctuary cities are the solution, but I think they are a valuable temporary measure while the broader issue of illegal immigration and the immigration system are looked at.

It is very easy for people to be labeled and dismissed as only criminals and their motivations as "not my problem". But it is your problem, because they keep coming into your country. I think sanctuary cities can help us search for productive solutions that look further than just kicking them out and building a wall.

I'd like to add that this is an outsider's perspective. I don't have in-depth knowledge of your laws and situation. I'm just looking to offer my perspective and discuss a tough issue.

When people enter the USA illegally, be that place California or any other state, they are already showing themselves to be willing to break the law to get what they want. So, it is not too hard to imagine that such a person will break other laws in order to get the things they want or think they need.

This is not necessarily so. They may break other laws,by, for example, working illegally, but I don't think that we can assume that all/many will break other laws. I would guess that quite a few would do their best to avoid doing anything illegal, as this would (a) increase the risk of their being caught and (b) increase the risk of their deportation if they were caught.

Nick - I think I understand what you are doing. Now that it has been proved to the world just how many false accounts were able to function, unimpeded, on social media we must all be aware of how much b.s. goes on in cyber-platforms, yeah?

So, I don't think you are being parochial and casting aspersions onforeigners, are you? Just putting the information out there: it's up to us to make what we can of it?

After the incursions onto the Forum by spammers, and false "Naomis" etc. I'm grateful for the information. After reading and re-reading this post the tone of it rings rather dodgy (from the vocabulary to the syntax) so I'm going to trust my instincts. I'm sure just as many people will opt to put the info. down to being spooked.

One must also take into account that you, yourself, prefer to keep your origins secret.

the original post contains some errors typical of a native Slavic speaker.

Hello NickS,

I know this is a political forum but I am very interested in your comment about the language. I am a native Slavic speaker (Croatian) and it would be useful to me to know which errors, typical of Slavic speakers, you noticed in the original post. I would appreciate very much if you let me know these errors.

I am very interested in your comment about the language. I am a native Slavic speaker (Croatian) and it would be useful to me to know which errors, typical of Slavic speakers, you noticed in the original post.

I would be interested to know, too. I, a native speaker of BrE, have lived in the Czech Republic for fourteen of the last seventeen years, teaching English to Czechs and Slovaks for much of that time. I saw nothing in the original post that made me think that it was typical of a native speaker of a Slavic language.

I'm confused as to why this is pinned, too. It's flat out annoying, and it's got some bad logical arguments.

The post does come off as really flowery. And there are some definite odd grammar things about it. And look, the OP hasn't been back since!

So rewarding them with pinning the topic and not at least changing the title to something like "NOTE: this is what a first time troll post looks like" doesn't seem like good policy.

I only responded here because others have.

And the kicker? California is, in many ways, extremely successful. Yes, it's the 6th biggest economy in the world. It's tried a lot of things, and while some have gone wrong, some have been positive indeed, and the rest of the world is catching up to it. (See: Los Angeles's smog being cleaned up.) And if people complain about the high taxes, well, you get a lot of service for it. Compare California to Kansas, which has consistently lowered taxes and is a mess.

Many immigrants work hard and pay taxes and do jobs regular US Citizens wouldn't. They deserve our respect.

Neither has NickS (Rank: Administration). Some of us have, over the years, requested intervention by mods/admins when we have been concerned about the racist/sexist/homophobic/chauvinistic content of some posts - and our requests have simply been ignored. There has not even been an acknowledgement that our messages have been noted.

Now, a post which at first site seems innocuous, though it manages to be pinned at the top of the list of posts, leads to a gnomic post (implying there is something dubious about the post/poster) from an admin - who then disappears.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.